Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 55 references

A single microwave pulse drives a native 65-ns CCZ gate at 99.39% fidelity on three fluxonium qubits, matching what eight near-perfect CZ gates would need.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 11:17 UTC pith:4AZPMNY3

load-bearing objection Solid experimental native CCZ at 99.39% with single-pulse control; the number and the scaling story both hold up. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27094 v1 pith:4AZPMNY3 submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph

Native CCZ Gate with Fluxonium Qubits and a Microwave-Driven Coupler

Grigoriy S. Mazhorin , Tatyana A. Chudakova , Alena S. Kazmina , Nikolai G. Berezkin , Arina V. Zotova , Artyom M. Polyanskiy , Nikolay N. Abramov , Mikhail A. Tarkhov
show 7 more authors
Alexander M. Mumlyakov Igor V. Trofimov Elizaveta A. Krivko Nikita Yu. Rudenko Maxim V. Chichkov Vladimir I. Chichkov Ilya A. Simakov
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords native multi-qubit gatesCCZ gateToffolifluxoniumtransmon couplermicrowave-driven gatessuperconducting qubitscross-entropy benchmarking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Quantum algorithms lean on multi-qubit operations such as the Toffoli gate, but superconducting hardware usually builds them from many two-qubit gates, stacking error and time. This paper shows a three-qubit processor unit in which a controlled-controlled-phase (CCZ) gate—locally equivalent to Toffoli—is native: one microwave pulse on a shared transmon coupler selectively flips the coupler when all three fluxonium qubits are in a chosen computational state, returning a conditional phase of π. The gate lasts 65 ns, reaches 99.39(5)% fidelity, and is limited by the qubits’ own coherence rather than by multi-drive calibration overhead. Reaching the same fidelity by decomposing into nearest-neighbour CZ gates would demand roughly 99.94% two-qubit fidelity. The same coupling layout is argued to tile into two-dimensional arrays while keeping unwanted qubit–qubit interactions small, so native multi-qubit gates need not sacrifice the simplicity and scalability of ordinary two-qubit architectures.

Core claim

The authors experimentally realize a native CCZ operation, locally equivalent to a Toffoli gate, lasting 65 ns with fidelity 99.39(5)% in a three-fluxonium unit coupled by one microwave-driven transmon. A single 2π pulse on the coupler transition conditioned on the |111⟩ (or |000⟩) state imparts the conditional phase; calibration uses only amplitude and frequency sweeps and yields coherence-limited performance. The same fidelity via conventional eight-CZ decomposition on linear connectivity would require CZ gates of about 99.94% fidelity. Multiplexed drives further allow independent simultaneous phase control on |000⟩ and |111⟩, and the unit is claimed to extend to two-dimensional layouts wi

What carries the argument

State-dependent coupler frequency: strong fluxonium–transmon capacitive coupling shifts the transmon 0–1 frequency by tens to hundreds of MHz according to the joint computational state of the three qubits, so a single near-resonant 2π microwave pulse selectively completes a Rabi cycle only for the target basis state and returns a controlled-controlled phase.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted 99.39% fidelity correctly isolates the three-qubit gate error, which rests on interleaved cross-entropy benchmarking whose single-qubit reference decay assumes local noise dominates and that residual coherent or non-local errors are negligible.

What would settle it

An independent full process tomography or a Clifford-based three-qubit randomized benchmark on the same device that returns a process fidelity substantially below the reported XEB number, or a multi-unit two-dimensional chip in which parasitic ZZ or coupler crosstalk collapses the spectral selectivity needed for the single-pulse CCZ.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Native Toffoli-class gates become competitive with decompositions once two-qubit fidelities sit near 99.94%, without needing still higher two-qubit performance.
  • Single-pulse, two-parameter calibration removes the multi-drive coherent-error tax that has limited other superconducting three-qubit schemes.
  • The three-qubit coupler element lets each fluxonium island touch at most one transmon even in 2D, preserving the low-parasitic mechanism of linear fluxonium–transmon arrays.
  • Multiplexed coupler tones support simultaneous independent phase gates on distinct computational states and, by analogy, parallel native three-qubit gates on adjacent couplers.
  • Further gains in fluxonium T1 and T2 should translate nearly one-to-one into higher native CCZ fidelity, since the gate already sits at the coherence limit.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the coherence-limited single-pulse picture holds at scale, Toffoli-heavy workloads (search, factoring, chemistry, measurement-free error correction) could cut entangling depth by roughly the eight-CZ factor without waiting for order-of-magnitude better two-qubit gates.
  • The same spectral-selectivity mechanism naturally supports continuous families of three-qubit phase gates, not only discrete CCZ, which the multiplexed π/2 demonstration already hints at.
  • Whether this approach outruns native multi-qubit gates on ions or atoms will turn on whether 2D fluxonium layouts keep the reported isolation when many couplers and islands share a chip.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the experimental realization of a native three-qubit CCZ gate (locally equivalent to Toffoli) on a fluxonium–transmon–fluxonium processor unit. A single microwave 2π pulse applied to a shared transmon coupler selectively addresses the coupler transition conditioned on |111⟩, producing a 65-ns gate with interleaved-XEB fidelity 99.39(5)%. Calibration uses two independent measurements (Rabi-like amplitude and Ramsey-type conditional phase). The authors argue that matching this fidelity via a nearest-neighbour eight-CZ decomposition would require CZ fidelities of ~99.94% (SI1000 circuit-level noise model), that performance is coherence-limited, and that the unit extends to 2D layouts with suppressed parasitics while supporting multiplexed phase control on |000⟩ and |111⟩.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a concrete step toward treating multi-qubit gates as hardware primitives rather than expensive decompositions. The combination of (i) single-pulse control with a short, transparent calibration, (ii) coherence-limited ~99.4% fidelity at a duration comparable to two-qubit gates, and (iii) an explicit scaling argument that preserves the parasitic-suppression mechanisms of linear fluxonium–transmon architectures is stronger than prior superconducting native three-qubit demonstrations that either required multi-drive calibration or suffered large parasitics. The multiplexed |000⟩/|111⟩ control and the quantitative decomposition comparison (Fig. 3c, Appendix J) are useful, falsifiable contributions. Device parameters, spectroscopy, calibration sequences, XEB circuits, and supplementary derivations (Appendices A–J) are reported in enough detail for independent assessment.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix H, Eq. (H1); Fig. 3a] Appendix H, Eq. (H1): the coherence-limit band in Fig. 3a is computed from fluxonium T1 and Tφ only. During the resonant 2π pulse the coupler is appreciably excited on the target computational subspace (T1,T ≈ 6 μs, Table I), so coupler relaxation and dephasing contribute to the process error. Because the abstract and main text claim “coherence-limited performance,” the estimate should either include a weighted coupler term (with the duty cycle set by the 2π trajectory and the 1/8 computational weight of |111⟩) or explicitly justify why that contribution is negligible relative to the blue band. A revised curve (or a short numerical estimate) is needed to keep the claim load-bearing.
  2. [Appendix I; Fig. 3b; HIGH-FIDELITY NATIVE CCZ GATE] Appendix I, Eqs. (I1)–(I2) and Table III: the reported 99.39(5)% rests on interleaved XEB with single-qubit references under a local-noise assumption (pref = 1 − 16/21 Σ ei). The simultaneous-vs-individual single-qubit comparison and the analytic reference-decay check are the right controls and are partially supplied, but the main text should state more clearly (i) the circuit depths used, (ii) that the extracted pCCZ is stable when the reference model is replaced by the measured simultaneous single-qubit decay, and (iii) any residual coherent error budget (off-resonant coupler transitions, residual ZZ) that is not captured by the depolarizing fit. Without that, the isolation of the three-qubit error—and therefore the 99.94% equivalent-CZ claim—remains the softest point of the central result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1b; Table I] Fig. 1b and Table I: the state-dependent coupler detunings are central to spectral selectivity; adding the fitted χi (or the non-additive shifts) next to the level diagram would help the reader connect Eq. (1) to the measured 78/130 MHz isolations without flipping to the SI.
  2. [Fig. 3c; Appendix J] Fig. 3c: the gray “equivalent CCZ from CZ decomposition” curve should state in the caption that single-qubit errors are p/10, idling errors are included, and T gates are ideal (Appendix J), so the 99.94% figure is not misread as a pure two-qubit threshold.
  3. [MULTIPLEXED CONTROL; Fig. 4] Main text (MULTIPLEXED CONTROL): the 80-ns multiplexed vs sequential comparison is limited by AWG power; a sentence on whether the fidelity gap is fully explained by duration (vs residual cross-talk between the two drive tones) would tighten the claim that multiplexed control adds no coherent error.
  4. [Section headings; throughout] Typos / notation: “HIGH-FIDELITY NA TIVE” and “SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION” have stray spaces; “CCZ” vs “CCZ” (overline) should be introduced once in a display equation so the two operations remain visually distinct in print.
  5. [Appendix A; Appendix B] Appendix A–B: the two-mode fluxonium harmonic mode is declared “far detuned and omitted”; quoting its frequency (or a lower bound) would reassure readers that it does not participate in the driven dynamics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: experimental fidelity, coherence bound, and decomposition comparison are independently measured or simulated, not forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

This is an experimental device paper whose central numbers come from measured XEB decay curves, independent T1/Techo characterizations, and a standard SI1000 circuit-level simulation of an eight-CZ Toffoli decomposition. Device parameters are extracted from two-tone spectroscopy and conditional coupler frequencies (Appendix B), then used only to describe the hardware, not to redefine the reported gate fidelity. The effective longitudinal model (Eq. 1) and the full circuit Hamiltonian (Appendices A–B) are phenomenological/fitted characterizations of the chip; they do not algebraically force the 99.39(5)% XEB result or the ~99.94% equivalent-CZ figure. Self-citations ([36], [37], [39], [41]) supply the prior gate proposal, architecture context, and interleaved-XEB protocol with single-qubit references, but the fidelity itself is obtained from new experimental decay data on this device, cross-checked by simultaneous vs individual single-qubit XEB (Table III) and by an independent coherence-limit estimate (Eq. H1). None of the load-bearing claims reduce by construction to their inputs. Score 0 is the appropriate honest finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central experimental claim rests on standard circuit-QED Hamiltonians, the definition of average gate fidelity, the XEB depolarizing model under a local-noise assumption, and the SI1000 circuit-level noise model used for the decomposition comparison. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the usual device energies and couplings fitted once from spectroscopy, plus the two calibration knobs (amplitude, frequency) of the gate pulse.

free parameters (3)
  • Fluxonium and transmon energies (EL, EJ, EC) and capacitive couplings gij = See Table II (e.g. EJ/h ≈ 4.4–5.1 GHz, gFT ≈ 550 MHz)
    Extracted by fitting two-tone spectroscopy and conditional coupler frequencies (Appendix B, Table II); used to confirm the state-dependent shifts that enable the gate.
  • Gate-pulse amplitude and carrier frequency = Amplitude ≈ 0.35 V for 65 ns gate; frequency set to the |111>-conditioned coupler transition
    Calibrated in situ by residual coupler population and conditional Ramsey phase (Fig. 2); two free knobs for fixed pulse shape and duration.
  • CZ depolarizing probability p in SI1000 decomposition simulation = p corresponding to ≈99.94% CZ fidelity
    Varied parametrically to find the two-qubit fidelity that matches the measured CCZ fidelity (Appendix J); not fitted to new data but scanned.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Average gate fidelity formula for a CPTP map (Eq. E3) correctly quantifies the experimental process when the computational subspace projector is used.
    Invoked throughout Appendices E–H to convert amplitude, phase, and decoherence errors into fidelity numbers.
  • domain assumption Interleaved XEB with single-qubit Clifford references yields a depolarizing parameter that isolates the three-qubit gate error under dominant local noise (Appendix I).
    Used to extract the headline 99.39(5)% figure; supported by simultaneous vs individual single-qubit fidelities but not by full tomography.
  • domain assumption The SI1000 circuit-level noise model with eight CZ gates and idle errors accurately represents the overhead of a nearest-neighbor Toffoli decomposition.
    Appendix J; standard in the field but still an idealization of real hardware connectivity and crosstalk.
  • domain assumption Effective longitudinal qubit–coupler interaction (Eq. 1) plus capacitive Hamiltonian (Appendix A) captures the state-dependent coupler frequencies that enable selective driving.
    Core physical model; higher levels and the two-mode fluxonium harmonic mode are truncated after being argued to be far detuned.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 20719 in / 2992 out tokens · 47723 ms · 2026-07-30T11:17:00.267245+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Native multi-qubit gates could reduce the overhead associated with decompositions into single- and two-qubit operations, but whether they can simultaneously provide high fidelity, simple control and robustness against parasitic interactions in scalable architectures remains unclear. Here we experimentally realize a 65-ns native controlled-controlled-phase operation, locally equivalent to the Toffoli gate, with a fidelity of 99.39(5)% in a three-qubit processor unit based on fluxonium qubits coupled via a microwave-driven transmon coupler. The implemented operation would require CZ fidelities of approximately 99.94% if realized through a conventional decomposition. The gate is implemented with a single control pulse, that relies on a simple calibration procedure yielding coherence-limited performance. This processor unit naturally extends to scalable two-dimensional layouts with low parasitic interactions. Altogether, these results establish native multi-qubit gates as a viable hardware-efficient primitive for scalable superconducting quantum processors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27094 by Alena S. Kazmina, Alexander M. Mumlyakov, Arina V. Zotova, Artyom M. Polyanskiy, Elizaveta A. Krivko, Grigoriy S. Mazhorin, Igor V. Trofimov, Ilya A. Simakov, Maxim V. Chichkov, Mikhail A. Tarkhov, Nikita Yu. Rudenko, Nikolai G. Berezkin, Nikolay N. Abramov, Tatyana A. Chudakova, Vladimir I. Chichkov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    An amplitude error results in in- complete population return of the coupler after the gate pulse

    Amplitude We first consider the effect of an imperfect drive- amplitude calibration. An amplitude error results in in- complete population return of the coupler after the gate pulse. The implemented gate differs from the ideal CCZ only in the diagonal element corresponding to the|111⟩ state, which becomes−1 +δ. Substituting the resulting process matrix in...

  2. [2]

    Substituting the corresponding gate matrix into Eq

    F requency We next consider the effect of an error in the accumu- lated conditional phase, such that the|111⟩state acquires a phase ofπ+δφinstead of the ideal valueπ. Substituting the corresponding gate matrix into Eq. (E3) yields F= 1 9 + 25 + 7 cosδφ 36 ≈1− 7 72 δφ2.(G2) In the experiment, virtualZrotations are applied to the three fluxonium qubits. The...

  3. [3]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Bran- dao, D. A. Buell,et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature574, 505–510 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Acharya, I

    R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ans- mann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush,et al., Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a sur- face code logical qubit, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    D. A. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, G. Aigeldinger, A. Ajoy, R. Alcaraz, I. Aleiner, T. I. An- dersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute,et al., Observation of constructive interference at the edge of quantum ergod- icity, Nature646, 825 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Acharya, L

    R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Ander- sen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. As- trakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush,et al.(Google AI Quantum), Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920–926 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zale- tel, K. Temme,et al., Evidence for the utility of quan- tum computing before fault tolerance, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    D. Gao, D. Fan, C. Zha, J. Bei, G. Cai, J. Cai, S. Cao, F. Chen, J. Chen, K. Chen,et al., Establishing a new benchmark in quantum computational advantage with 105-qubit zuchongzhi 3.0 processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 090601 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Poulin, A

    D. Poulin, A. Kitaev, D. S. Steiger, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Quantum algorithm for spectral measurement with a lower gate count, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 010501 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Mukhopadhyay, N

    P. Mukhopadhyay, N. Wiebe, and H. T. Zhang, Synthe- sizing efficient circuits for hamiltonian simulation, npj Quantum Information9, 31 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    S.-N. Sun, B. Marinelli, J. M. Koh, Y. Kim, L. B. Nguyen, L. Chen, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. I. Santiago, I. Siddiqi, and A. J. Minnich, Quantum computation of frequency- domain molecular response properties using a three-qubit itoffoli gate, npj Quantum Information10, 55 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    T. Monz, K. Kim, W. H¨ ansel, M. Riebe, A. Villar, P. Schindler, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Re- alization of the quantum toffoli gate with trapped ions, Physical review letters102, 040501 (2009)

    2009

  13. [13]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, I. V. Zalivako, A. S. Borisenko, N. V. Se- menin, K. P. Galstyan, A. E. Korolkov, E. O. Kiktenko, K. Y. Khabarova, I. A. Semerikov, A. K. Fedorov,et al., Scalable improvement of the generalized toffoli gate real- ization using trapped-ion-based qutrits, Physical Review Letters135, 060601 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler,et al., Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multiqubit gates with neutral atoms, Physical review let- ters123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara,et al., High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. Lawrie, M. Russ, F. Van Rigge- len, S. L. De Snoo, R. N. Schouten, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, A four-qubit germanium quan- tum processor, Nature591, 580 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Takeda, A

    K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, and S. Tarucha, Quantum error correction with silicon spin qubits, Nature608, 682 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Liu, B.-J

    H.-T. Liu, B.-J. Chen, J.-C. Zhang, Y.-X. Xiao, T.-M. Li, K. Huang, Z. Wang, H. Li, K. Zhao, Y. Xu, C.-L. Deng, G.-H. Liang, Z.-H. Liu, S.-Y. Zhou, C.-P. Fang, X. Song, Z. Xiang, D. Zheng, Y.-H. Shi, K. Xu, and H. Fan, Di- rect implementation of high-fidelity three-qubit gates for superconducting processor with tunable couplers, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 050602 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y. Kim, A. Hashim, N. Goss, B. Marinelli, B. Bhandari, D. Das, R. K. Naik, J. M. Kreikebaum, A. N. Jordan,et al., Programmable heisenberg inter- actions between floquet qubits, Nature Physics20, 240 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Y. Kim, A. Morvan, L. B. Nguyen, R. K. Naik, C. J¨ unger, L. Chen, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, High-fidelity three-qubit i toffoli gate for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits, Nature physics18, 783 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    X. Gu, J. Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, P. Vikst ˚ al, T. Abad, C. Warren, A. Bengtsson, G. Tancredi, V. Shumeiko, J. Bylander, G. Johansson,et al., Fast multiqubit gates through simultaneous two-qubit gates, PRX Quantum2, 040348 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    C. W. Warren, J. Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, S. Ahmed, T. Abad, A. Bengtsson, J. Bizn´ arov´ a, K. Debnath, X. Gu, C. Kriˇ zan, A. Osman,et al., Extensive characterization and implementation of a family of three-qubit gates at the coherence limit, npj Quantum Information9, 44 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    T. Roy, S. Hazra, S. Kundu, M. Chand, M. P. Patankar, and R. Vijay, Programmable superconducting proces- sor with native three-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 014072 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    Song, S.-B

    C. Song, S.-B. Zheng, P. Zhang, K. Xu, L. Zhang, Q. Guo, W. Liu, D. Xu, H. Deng, K. Huang,et al., Continuous- variable geometric phase and its manipulation for quan- tum computation in a superconducting circuit, Nature communications8, 1061 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Zhang, H

    K. Zhang, H. Li, P. Zhang, J. Yuan, J. Chen, W. Ren, Z. Wang, C. Song, D.-W. Wang, H. Wang, S. Zhu, G. S. Agarwal, and M. O. Scully, Synthesizing five-body inter- action in a superconducting quantum circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 190502 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Toffoli, Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Reversible Computing , Vol

    T. Toffoli, Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Reversible Computing , Vol. 85 (Springer, 1980)

    1980

  27. [27]

    L. K. Grover, Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 325 (1997)

    1997

  28. [28]

    Figgatt, D

    C. Figgatt, D. Maslov, K. A. Landsman, N. M. Linke, S. Debnath, and C. Monroe, Complete 3-qubit grover search on a programmable quantum computer, Nat. Commun.8, 1918 (2017)

    1918

  29. [29]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM J. Comput.26, 1484 (1994)

    1994

  30. [30]

    H¨ aner, M

    T. H¨ aner, M. Roetteler, and K. M. Svore, Factoring using 2n+ 2 qubits with toffoli based modular multiplication, 12 Quant. Inf. Comput.17, 673 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum al- gorithm for linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  32. [32]

    Fomichev, K

    S. Fomichev, K. Hejazi, M. S. Zini, M. Kiser, J. Fraxanet, P. A. M. Casares, A. Delgado, J. Huh, A.-C. Voigt, J. E. Mueller, and J. M. Arrazola, Initial state preparation for quantum chemistry on quantum computers, PRX Quan- tum5, 040339 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Heußen, D

    S. Heußen, D. F. Locher, and M. M¨ uller, Measurement- free fault-tolerant quantum error correction in near-term devices, PRX Quantum5, 010333 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    F. Butt, D. F. Locher, K. Brechtelsbauer, H. P. B¨ uchler, and M. M¨ uller, Measurement-free, scalable, and fault- tolerant universal quantum computing, Science Advances 11, eadv2590 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Smith, M

    E. Smith, M. G. Davis, J. Larson, E. Younis, L. B. Oftelie, W. Lavrijsen, and C. Iancu, Leap: Scaling numerical opti- mization based synthesis using an incremental approach, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing4(2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Fluxonium: Single cooper-pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science326, 113 (2009)

    2009

  37. [37]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design de- rived from the cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  38. [38]

    I. A. Simakov, G. S. Mazhorin, I. N. Moskalenko, S. S. Seidov, and I. S. Besedin, High-fidelity transmon-coupler- activatedcczgate on fluxonium qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 044035 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    I. A. Simakov, G. S. Mazhorin, I. N. Moskalenko, N. N. Abramov, A. A. Grigorev, D. O. Moskalev, A. A. Pishchi- mova, N. S. Smirnov, E. V. Zikiy, I. A. Rodionov, and I. S. Besedin, Coupler microwave-activated controlled-phase gate on fluxonium qubits, PRX Quantum4, 040321 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y. Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, A. H. Karamlou, T. M. Hazard, K. Azar, D. K. Kim,et al., High-fidelity, frequency-flexible two- qubit fluxonium gates with a transmon coupler, Phys. Rev. X13, 031035 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    A. A. Kugut, G. S. Mazhorin, and I. A. Simakov, Interaction-resilient scalable fluxonium architecture with all-microwave gates, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21189 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Z. Zhan, Z. Li, F. Wang, W. Lan, X. Pan, L. Xiang, X. Dou, R. Gao, G. Gong, Y. Guo,et al., Scalable flux- onium quantum processors via tunable-coupler architec- ture, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.13363 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    I. A. Simakov, A. V. Zotova, T. A. Chudakova, A. S. Kazmina, A. M. Polyanskiy, N. N. Abramov, M. A. Tarkhov, A. M. Mumlyakov, I. V. Trofimov, N. Y. Rudenko,et al., Decay rates in interleaved bench- marking with single-qubit references, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.05422 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  45. [45]

    W.-J. Lin, H. Cho, Y. Chen, M. G. Vavilov, C. Wang, and V. E. Manucharyan, 24 days-stable cnot gate on fluxo- nium qubits with over 99.9% fidelity, PRX Quantum6, 010349 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Marxer, J

    F. Marxer, J. Mro˙ zek, J. Andersson, L. Abdurakhimov, J. Adam, V. Bergholm, R. Beriwal, C. F. Chan, S. Dahl, S. R. Das,et al., Above 99.9% fidelity single-qubit gates, two-qubit gates, and readout in a single superconducting quantum device, PRX Quantum7, 020333 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    G. X. Chan, W. Lan, T. Wang, X. Ma, C. Deng, and L. Jin, System-level design of scalable fluxonium quan- tum processors with double-transmon couplers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.26373 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    I. N. Moskalenko, I. S. Besedin, I. A. Simakov, and A. V. Ustinov, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing two- qubit gates on fluxonium qubits, Applied Physics Letters 119, 194001 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    T. A. Chudakova, G. S. Mazhorin, I. Trofimov, N. Y. Rudenko, A. Mumlyakov, A. S. Kazmina, E. Y. Egorova, P. A. Gladilovich, M. V. Chichkov, N. A. Maleeva,et al., Effect of etching methods on dielectric losses in trans- mons, JETP Letters120, 298 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Dunsworth, A

    A. Dunsworth, A. Megrant, C. Quintana, Z. Chen, R. Barends, B. Burkett, B. Foxen, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Fowler,et al., Characterization and reduction of ca- pacitive loss induced by sub-micron josephson junction fabrication in superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Letters111, 022601 (2017)

    2017

  51. [51]

    Z. Chen, A. Megrant, J. Kelly, R. Barends, J. Bochmann, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, J. Y. Mu- tus, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Neill, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Fabrication and characterization of aluminum airbridges for superconducting microwave cir- cuits, Applied Physics L...

    2014

  52. [52]

    L. H. Pedersen, N. M. Møller, and K. Mølmer, Fidelity of quantum operations, Physics Letters A367, 47 (2007)

    2007

  53. [53]

    Foxen, C

    B. Foxen, C. Neill, A. Dunsworth, P. Roushan, B. Chiaro, A. Megrant, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, K. Satzinger, R. Barends, F. Arute,et al.(Google AI Quantum), Demonstrating a continuous set of two-qubit gates for near-term quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 120504 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    Z. Chen, W. Liu, Y. Ma, W. Sun, R. Wang, H. Wang, H. Xu, G. Xue, H. Yan, Z. Yang,et al., Efficient im- plementation of arbitrary two-qubit gates using unified control, Nature Physics21, 1489 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    Gidney, M

    C. Gidney, M. Newman, A. Fowler, and M. Broughton, A fault-tolerant honeycomb memory, Quantum5, 605 (2021)

    2021